Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
Stuart Prescott writes ("Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages"):
> I'm not suggesting that VAC status should be public information, but blanket
> statements that we know if maintainers are on VAC (or MIA or whatever) are
> wrong for 50% of our maintainers as are statements that potential salvagers
> have this information.
This is a good point. Another reason why the post-ITO waiting period
should be much longer than two weeks.